- 3. On April 9, 2010, the Applicant was involved in a motor vehicle collision (MVA). Subsequent to his accident, the Applicant has been treated andassessedby numerous medical professionals.
- 4. The Respondent is a psychiatrist. On March 15, 2012, he performed an independent medicalexamination (IME) of the Applicant, arranged by Seiden Health Management on behalf of Unica Insurance.
- 5. It is that assessment, and the Respondent’s IME report that formed the basis for the Applicant’s complaint.
In its decision, the Committee indicated its satisfaction that the Respondent’s assessment and report were in keeping with the College’s policy onThird Party Reports. It expressed its view that the Respondent “provided a thorough independent opinion that included a comprehensive history, a mental status examination, references to expert opinions by other examining specialists, and a medical opinion based upon his findings.”
- 23. Although the Committee found that the Respondent prepared a reasonable report, it went on to note that the Respondent’s choice of words in some instances could be perceived as somewhat “adversarial and/or lacking in objectivity”. Observing that the Respondent had been the subject of a number of previous complaints of a similar nature, the Committee encouraged him to reflect on the tone of his writing, to ensure that third party reports of this nature will be written in a neutral and objective manner.
- 24. Regarding the Applicant’s concern with the Respondent’s professionalism, the Committee noted the divergent accounts of the parties, and indicated that as it was unable to determine with certainty what happened during the assessment, it was unable to conclude whether the Respondent was in any way inappropriate in his manner, and hence determined the appropriate disposition was to take no action on this aspect of the complaint.